If evolution is a theory, why are we required to learn about it in school?

Unfortunately for those who are taught the science evolution or even religion, the functions of natural laws are not.

Thus they don’t whether the theory is valid or not.

Evolution Debunked
"But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilisation, when the laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed." Swami Dayanand

Albert Einstein agrees - "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
Scholars of theology, except the Aryas, have no understanding at all and for those of science, it is dim.

Ok, here we go.

“If man had really evolved from a lower creature, then it was, as it were, a fact - a law which according to evolutionists, was unceasing in its operations under any conditions whatsoever. If the law was of a constant and permanent nature, ever working itself out, how was it that for thousands of years past, no lower creature had evolved into a human being.”

We'll start with the obvious; humans didn't evolve from lower creatures, but from different creatures. Evolution is not a linear progression from low to high.

The evolution of Homo Sapiens was not a Law. It was a process which happened. That's not the same thing as a Law, in science.

The mechanisms which cause it -genetic mutation and natural selection- do keep happening, but they don't seem constant. The rate of evolution can vary wildly.

The rest of that paragraph is basically a rephrasing of the classic creationists JAQ-off “If humans came from apes, why are there still apes?”, which is just as silly as asking “If my family came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?”. The fact is that apes don't just spontaneously turn into humans overnight. It's a long process, with a great many intermediate steps. In order for it to happen again, all of the processes which happened would have to happen again, which is unlikely given the environmental and ecological changes since then.

"but from different creatures.”
Vj ~ Still creatures dumb a-s-s!

"Evolution is not a linear progression from low to high.”
The origin of the human race from a primitive state (lower creature, ape or chimp) is from low to high (caveman, middle-age and now modern.

"The evolution of Homo Sapiens was not a Law.”
Vj ~ Natural laws govern all things physical, there is no exception.

"That's not the same thing as a Law, in science.”
Vj ~ “Science without religion is lame…..” Albert Einstein. Science is lame because scientists have only a “dim” understanding of natural laws.
"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein.

"genetic mutation and natural selection- do keep happening”
Vj ~ Natural laws call for every event in nature to be steady occurrences, which means a human evolving from an ape or chimp cannot be a one time occurrence.

“The rest of that paragraph is basically a rephrasing of the classic creationists”
Vj ~ Only the Vedic theology teaches the functions of natural laws so yes we the aryas are the creationist’s religion that makes science lame.

“If humans came from apes, why are there still apes?”
Vj ~ If you really understand how the law works you won’t look as stupid as you are. If human evolved from an ape the process must continue for all apes and not one.

“The fact is that apes don't just spontaneously turn into humans overnight. It's a long process”
Vj ~ And how long has it been since the last and only ape evolved into a human? Again, I can ask why are all humans not caucasian by now since no other ape since the first one evolved into human?

“which is unlikely given the environmental and ecological changes since then.”
Vj ~ So you’re saying “environmental and ecological changes” are above the law? It is like saying barbarians or terrorists are immune to justice and are above the law.

I really must suggest that you study biology, instead of trying to look at this from a philosophical perspective. At the very least, learn what a Law is in science.

“I really must suggest that you study biology,”


Vj ~ You don’t get it Thomas, if science doesn’t have all the answers, does it not make sense to turn to philosophy?

“At the very least, learn what a Law is in science.”


Vj ~ One of the greatest mind (Albert Einstein) of the last century has already done that and the result is, “science is lame” and its understanding of natural laws is “dim” (little or none).

“Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.”

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Do your really think you’re smarter than him?

Your repeated quote-mining of Einstein doesn't help your argument. It's generally considered unwise to build an entire worldview upon a single quote, no matter who it came from.

Turning to philosophy just because ‘science doesn't have all the answers’ is a form of the ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy, especially considering that science does actually have answers to some of the things you're relying on philosophy for. You're not just lacking information; you are actively seeking wrong information.

“Your repeated quote-mining of Einstein doesn't help your argument.”
Vj ~ I know, how can it when all you have is science which doesn’t have all the answers?

“It's generally considered unwise”
Vj ~ How would you know when it is by philosophical thoughts alone one is deemed wise?

“Turning to philosophy just because ‘science doesn't have all the answers’ is a form of the ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy”
Vj ~ So you’re saying it is better to remain an idiot relying on science which doesn’t have all the answers than turning to philosophy which has all the answers? It is philosophy that taught me the functions of natural laws which invalidates your science of evolution.

“considering that science does actually have answers to some of the things you're relying on philosophy for”
Vj ~ Well, I’m not idiot who like you, who is content with “some” answers. Like Einstein and any other sensible person I want all the answers and I do have them all - The one true philosophy.

“You're not just lacking information; you are actively seeking wrong information.”
Vj ~ Only if you knew, I’m proud of being among a “select few” and couldn’t be the result of “wrong information”.

"Philosophy and reason will remain the most beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the select few." Albert Einstein

So, to summarise, you care more about getting an answer to every question, than getting answers which are actually correct.

Evolution is a fact. The scientific evidence for it is overwhelming. If your philosophy is incompatible with it, then, frankly, your philosophy is wrong.

“So, to summarise, you care more about getting an answer to every question”
Vj ~ It is every answer that puts me among a “select few” and if you weren’t an idiot who lacks desire you would have taken interest in what I’ve achieved - The one true religion

“than getting answers which are actually correct.”
Vj ~ That’s what you’ve got and you’re still an idiot.

“Evolution is a fact.”
Vj ~ Well how would an idiot know when a fact or theory conforms to the laws of nature?

“your philosophy is wrong.”
Vj ~ My philosophy is in harmony with reasoning and science and in conformity with the laws of nature. Can you say the same for the science evolution?

Is the Darwinian evolution a case of observations that resulted in the wrong definition?
No.
Darwin’s observations are the foundations of a proved science.
We already know that evolution is a proved fact in general terms.
Darwin observed natural biological evolution. And then wrote a book on it, where he extrapolated natural biological evolution to extend to one species evolving into one of more descendant species.

Doesn't look too good for Evolutionists!
One of the originators of the Physical Evolution Theory, Dr. A. R. Wallace was the first to strike down the Social Evolution Theory. He rightly affirmed that: "The Veda admittedly the oldest book in the library of mankind contains the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers and is a vast system of religious teachings which are pure and lofty."

He further wrote in "Social Environment and Moral Progress," strongly refuting the social and moral evolution theory:
"In the earliest records which have come down to us from the past, we find ample indications that accepted standard of morality and the conduct resulting from these were in no degree inferior to those which prevail today, though in some respects, they were different from ours. The wonderful collection of hymns known as the Vedas are a vast system of religious teachings as pure and lofty as those of the finest portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Its authors were fully our equals in their conception of the universe and the Deity expressed in the finest poetic language."

"In it (Veda) we find many of the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers." "We must admit that the mind which conceived and expressed inappropriate language, such ideas as are everywhere present in those Vedic hymns, could not have been inferior to those of the best of our religious teachers and poets to our Milton, Shakespeare, and Tennyson."

And if he (Wallace) did, so what? Would that invalidate his work?

Of course it would! Russell is saying there were equally or even wiser men long (thousands of years) before the science of evolution by natural selection claimed to have produced them.

Really, the validity of a theory rests not in whether it’s accurate, but rather how the author feels about it? Science is the search for reality, not comfort.

I’ve found both reality and comfort.

“Science without religion is lame………”
We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

HI, Vijai ~

You have just demonstrated a perfect example of this error:
“Instead of evidence, we should believe something if a famous person said it.”
This is still your error.

What is needed to elevate this saying to something more than a metaphor or a quip is some EVIDENCE.

The problem in the case of this quote is that it is not a scientific hypothesis in the first place. It cannot be put to the test of determining whether it is false or not.

So it must stay forever in the category of “quip” — but it can never be used as actual evidence.

That means that the only meaningful response must be:
> “Haha! Very nice quip!”

But the response can never be:
“Oh! Now you’ve proved something!”
————————

One way that you can help yourself figure out the difference is to ask yourself if the words would be allowed as evidence in a court of law.

If a lawyer tried to introduce as evidence a little joke or saying, would a judge allow it to go back to the jury room with the jurors as part of the evidence (along with the gun, the ballistics report, the crime scene photos, etc.)

If a little saying is not allowed as evidence in a court of law, then it is not “evidence” in the scientific meaning of that word either.
———————

You said:
“ ‘Science without religion is lame………’ Albert Einstein “
My response:
Haha! Very nice quip!
And it shows that you still don’t know what “evidence” is.
It certainly isn’t “something a famous person said.”

“Instead of evidence, we should believe something if a famous person said it.”
Vj ~ No, you're not suppose to accept it, without first investigating it.
I know this much, evidence is only valid when it conforms to the laws of nature, and a dim understanding of these laws isn’t enough.

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein -

The ruder stage
"But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilisation, when the laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed." Swami Dayanand

“Oh! Now you’ve proved something!”
Vj ~ I'm not here to prove anything to anyone. I'm here to show you the way

If a little saying is not allowed as evidence in a court of law, then it is not “evidence” in the scientific meaning of that word either.
Vj ~ Here is my evidence

And it shows that you still don’t know what “evidence” is.
Vj ~ Why look for evidence when don't know what he meant by it?

You once AGAIN have demonstrated that you think quotes and quips are EVIDENCE.

That is the conduct of a religious person, but never the behavior of science.

This is philosophy my dear! Einstein was not only a scientist, but deeply involved in philosophy and only philosophy can lead us to the truth.
"Philosophy and reason will remain the most beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the select few." Einstein


In fact, science can come up with all kinds of evidences, but if they do not conform to the laws of nature, they aren’t valid.
"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Einstein

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein -

The laws that Einstein was referring to were natural laws… no God required.

In fact, he firmly rejected the concept of a personal god;-

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. “

[Albert Einstein, in a letter to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, dated January 3 1954.]

No matter how much you like to twist his words, Einstein did not believe in a personal god, and certainly not the god of any primitive, childish religious scripture.

The laws that Einstein was referring to were natural laws… no God required.
Vj ~ So where did it originate from?

In fact, he firmly rejected the concept of a personal god;-
Vj ~ Right, he did, but that's based on all the Abrahamic religions where their intervened personally into human affairs.

No matter how much you like to twist his words, Einstein did not believe in a personal god, and certainly not the god of any primitive, childish religious scripture.
Vj ~ Is it really twisting when he says "science without religion is lame...."
There is one he clearly accepted as the source of all morals, sciences and natural laws.

In the finest creationist misquoting tradition, you cunningly omitted the last part of that quote… the most important part;-

“… religion without science is blind” - Albert Einstein.

Yes Ted, I deliberately omitted the last part of Einstein’s quote, because I know you fellas know that religion without science is blind. But why don’t you give me and explanation of what he meant by “science without religion is lame”?

Absolute rubbish. You continually fail to demonstrate any understanding of science whatsoever… let alone the Modern Synthesis of evolution. I suggest you confine your academic pursuits to religious studies.

Absolute rubbish. You continually fail to demonstrate any understanding of science whatsoever… let alone the Modern Synthesis of evolution. I suggest you confine your academic pursuits to religious studies.

Correct, of course, as others already pointed out.

So did Wallace!

One of the originators of the Physical Evolution Theory, Dr. A. R. Wallace was the first to strike down the Social Evolution Theory. He rightly affirmed that: "The Veda admittedly the oldest book in the library of mankind contains the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers and is a vast system of religious teachings which are pure and lofty."

He further wrote in "Social Environment and Moral Progress," strongly refuting the social and moral evolution theory:
"In the earliest records which have come down to us from the past, we find ample indications that accepted standard of morality and the conduct resulting from these were in no degree inferior to those which prevail today, though in some respects, they were different from ours. The wonderful collection of hymns known as the Vedas are a vast system of religious teachings as pure and lofty as those of the finest portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Its authors were fully our equals in their conception of the universe and the Deity expressed in the finest poetic language."

"In it (Veda) we find many of the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers." "We must admit that the mind which conceived and expressed inappropriate language, such ideas as are everywhere present in those Vedic hymns, could not have been inferior to those of the best of our religious teachers and poets to our Milton, Shakespeare, and Tennyson."

Such theories of social and moral evolution have nothing to do with biological evolution by natural selection. They are misguided attempts to apply darwinian theory to society, class struggles, business competition, and so forth. Wallace never, to my knowledge, repudiated biological evolution but only the misuse and political distortion of science.

I take it you’ve no interest in my dialogue on evolution where I stressed on the importance of understanding the functions of natural laws.

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein.

Einstein also said “science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind”. Maybe you can reflect on that for a moment and see where he is going with it.

It’s unclear to me what you mean, or intend to discuss, by “the importance of understanding the functions of natural laws.” I don’t believe natural laws have “functions.” Natural laws are verbal or mathematical descriptions of the regularities that humans observe in the behavior of matter and energy—the mathematical laws of thermodynamics or fluid motion, the verbal laws of mendelian heredity or natural selection, for example. Laws do not govern; laws are heuristic descriptions of nature.

I’ve known Einstein’s quote for at least 50 years and reflected on it before. I agree with thee second half but not necessarily with the first. It’s not hard to think of examples to support the second; I’ve never seen a cogent argument for the first or an example of it.

It's only a belief (doubt) for you, but I know it has functions and I’m in a better position to say that for unlike you, I’ve delved into both your philosophy and mine.

The laws of nature were known to the first civilization on earth long before Darwin’s science of evolution.

The laws of nature govern all things physical. Progression is always downwards, a law, but your theory of natural selection speaks of the opposite.

The best argument you can find for the functions of natural laws is in the Vedic philosophy. - My debate on it - Evolution Debunked

You’re rather arrogant, aren’t you? What makes you think I haven’t studied Eastern philosophy? I spent years on it. Laws of nature describe things; they do not govern.

Laws of nature describe things; they do not govern.
Vj ~ How would you with a dim understanding know whether the laws describe or govern?

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

You once AGAIN have demonstrated that you think quotes and quips are EVIDENCE.

That is the conduct of a religious person, but never the behavior of science.

You once AGAIN have demonstrated that you think quotes and quips are EVIDENCE.
Vj ~ I don't "think", I know. They are quotes and quips of brilliant and very rational men.

That is the conduct of a religious person, but never the behavior of science.
Vj ~ Einstein was living proof that you can be both.

Hi, Vijai ~

You said:
“The laws of nature dictates progression is always downwards … “
My response:
Oh, balls.
What are “laws of nature”?
What is “progression”?
What does it mean to say it is “always downwards”?

Your comment is composed of words without referents.
If the meaningless terms were deleted, it would read:
“The ░ of ░ dictates (you mean “dictate”) ░░░ is ░░ ░░░ , “

“Oh, balls”
Vj ~ Be careful, that’s what you can end up with in your next life, as a donkey.

“What are the laws of nature?”
Vj ~ It functions are many, but there is one you do everyday when you answer nature’s call. It is consistent through the rectum and never any other way. The same goes for every other function of the senses, hearing, smelling, tasting, etc.

“What is progression?”
Vj ~ It is when you see a lot of metal, plastic, wooden parts, etc. lying around and after careful planning, collaboration and timing an aircraft, a building, a boat, etc. emerges.

“What does it mean to say it is always downwards?”
Vj ~ All things finite (created) must come to an end. If not by a bomb, most certainly by age (nature).

“Your comment is composed of words without referents.”
Vj ~ It is just a demonstration of wisdom which is very difficult for the ignorant to grasp.

Ann Carlyle
23h ago
The most educated scientists in the world are “not educated enough”?

Scientists have an opportunity to stumble upon evidence (not religious argument, but actual empirical evidence) every single day, many times per day, as they go about their work in all branches of science, biology, botany, zoology, parasitology, pathology, medicine, etc.

The scientist who can present real, verifiable, reproducible, empirical evidence that even MIGHT challenge Darwinian evolution will become rich and famous right on the spot.

Science has set itself up to heap vast rewards on the ones who discover something new or contradictory to something old.

It’s how society makes sure that new information gets distributed all over the place.

But guess what?

In spite of the gazillions of studies, experiments, research projects, and so on — all depending on the factual nature of Darwinian evolution to even work — not a single case has ever turned up — not ever, not even once — that contradicted the fact of evolution.

Please notice that these studies are carried out by people with WAY more education than religious nuts will ever have.

Yep, if they were educated they would know science without religion is lame, they would know Indians “taught them how to count”, they would have more than a “dim understanding” of natural laws.

“as they go about their work in all branches of science, biology, botany, zoology, parasitology, pathology, medicine, etc.”
Vj ~ I agree, science has done a lot for humanity but it is still lame. It doesn’t know the origin of the soul, matter and creation, the functions of natural laws. If you don’t why you’re here how would you know where you’re going?

“even MIGHT challenge Darwinian evolution will become rich and famous right on the spot.”
Vj ~ Truth is poison to the ignorant which is 99.9% of the world’s population so how can a wise man be famous and rich? The last one (Swami Dayanand) that walked this planet was assassinated. - Dayanand Saraswati

“not a single case has ever turned up — not ever, not even once — that contradicted the fact of evolution.”
Vj ~ Then again who is wise enough to say Einstein & Wallace are right in contradicting the fact of evolution.

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

One of the originators of the Physical Evolution Theory, Dr. A. R. Wallace was the first to strike down the Social Evolution Theory. He rightly affirmed that: "The Veda admittedly the oldest book in the library of mankind contains the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers and is a vast system of religious teachings which are pure and lofty.”

He further wrote in “Social Environment and Moral Progress,” strongly refuting the social and moral evolution theory:

“In the earliest records which have come down to us from the past, we find ample indications that accepted standard of morality and the conduct resulting from these were in no degree inferior to those which prevail today, though in some respects, they were different from ours. The wonderful collection of hymns known as the Vedas are a vast system of religious teachings as pure and lofty as those of the finest portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Its authors were fully our equals in their conception of the universe and the Deity expressed in the finest poetic language.”

“Please notice that these studies are carried out by people with WAY more education than religious nuts will ever have.”

Vj ~ Are you saying there are no such thing as scientific “nuts”? Not all scientists are in agreement, some are atheists, some Christians, some Muslims, some Hindus, etc. but if they all understood the functions of natural laws there will certainly be unity or harmony in thoughts. Both religious and scientific nuts would realize that evolution and religion are false as they are both a breach of natural laws.

There is no correlation between the two.
Wise is subjective in the extreme, many “wise” men assert nothing but religious nonsense, long shown to be errant and based entirely on superstition and fallacy.
Darwin’s findings however solidified an area of science that now reaches right across much of scientific research.

The Middle East was once the centre of many a breakthrough in mathematics, science and philosophy. Then came islam, and all that momentum fell away.

You have no idea who is wise! Only the wise know who is wise and who stands for scientific or religious nonsense.

Forget your research for while ask yourself how much you know of natural laws.

The wise has spoken -
"But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilisation, when the laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed." Swami Dayanand

Albert Einstein agrees - "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Scholars of theology, except the Aryas, have no understanding at all and for those of science, it is dim.

Where you have to supply your own version of reality, unsupported by any science, reputable links or evident learning,
is a statement of dishonesty.

Biology does NOT support any of your nonsensical Strawman assertions.

Your constant reference to lack of knowledge is YOUR issue.
Whilst you have been busy excluding any knowledge, science has continued onward. Exponentially more is known about EVERYTHING than when Einstein was alive, let alone when he made that statement.

[theology/θɪˈɒlədʒi/ noun: the study of the nature of God and religious belief]
What happens when you restrict your view so severely, is that you are unable to see that reality is outside of your god-fish bowl.

Tell me, when was the last time that a religious thought,
advanced science?

“is a statement of dishonesty.”
Vj ~ The dishonesty lies in your failure to investigate a faith that is in harmony with reason, science and one that conforms to the laws of nature.

“Biology does NOT support any of your nonsensical Strawman assertions.”
Vj ~ How would you know?

“science has continued onward. Exponentially more is known about EVERYTHING than when Einstein was alive,”
Vj ~ How would you change the fact that science is lame? “Science without religion is lame……… Albert Einstein

“Tell me, when was the last time that a religious thought,
advanced science?”
Vj ~ We know the origin of matter and thus we know the universe didn’t come from nothing. Is that good enough for you?

"We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein

It has been investigated, continuously since inception.
However right from the VERY FIRST scientific investigations,
NO EVIDENCE has ever been found.

What Has been found, is that every claim is completely false. Nothing more than superstition, ignorance and fallacy.

You know this.

You may not be guilty of superstition, but certainly of ignorance and fallacy. If there was ever a wise man in science, it would be Albert Einstein who said science without religion is lame.

You, in your ignorant state, can never know what evidence is valid because you lack the understanding of natural laws.

What is preventing you right now to point out just one fallacy of my faith?